35 Comment

  • I’m assuming if you did this in in a red state (e.g., Texas) it’s be reversed

    • Sure, but I don’t think that’s all you’re seeing here. DC is a blue city, but the Newseum attracts from all over. Plus, you pay to enter, so I don’t really think DC-ers are ducking in to skew this oh-so-scientific poll.

      I think it would be interesting to see how this would fair in one of the free museums, or in one not devoted to news, which many of a particular leaning are rejecting right now. Put it in the American History Museum.

      • Ah fair point – I glossed over the Newseum part. That place is awesome. However, not just DC in this area is blue. NOVA/Richmond, Maryland, most of the NE etc.

        • When I suggested going to the Newseum to my Fox News-watching conservative parents who were in town for a visit, they were aghast. (“A museum for the lying LIBERAL MEDIA!?”) It was like I asked them to go to the Hillary Clinton Museum for DemocRATS who Hate America. So, there are definitely people who will self-select away from that museum for political reasons.

          • Yep. Also, museums are, by definition, about education. Many Americans who support the ban are dismissive of education generally. These are the folks who value their gut over their brains.

          • That’s kinda nuts to me because the Newseum is funded in a big way by NewsCorp, the owners of Fox News!

      • Blithe

        Global, I think you’ve brought up a critical point. Not only is there an admission fee, it’s a hefty one — I think around $25 for each adult and $15 for most kids. So that’s $80 for a family of four — in a city with lots of free museums and other free or low cost things to do. Even as a tourist, that’s a chunk of change. So you have people who would visit or live in DC, who would want to engage in a news/history focused activity, who have the cash for it, and would consider it cash well spent, possibly without knowing very much about what they’re going to see and experience. That seems like a pretty skewed group, and it doesn’t surprise me that they might be more informed in certain ways, and less likely to trust/believe that “President Trump’s immigration plan will help keep Americans safe”. The wording of the question is probably also an issue. A different, more neutrally worded question, avoiding the use of the “Trump” name, and the “American’s safe” bit — would probably get a different response pattern.

    • Don’t be so sure about Texas. My daughter in Houston reports that Ted Cruz has closed down his district office there and quit hosting town hall meetings rather than face the volume of hostile visitors who have been showing up there daily. She recently called to ask if I would host activists from Texas who are now planning to turn up at his DC office, which she tells me is the only place where he apparently sees constituents now. Isn’t that interesting.

      This is off-point from the discussion of this impromptu straw poll that nowhere claims to be a scientifically calibrated inquiry. It’s a snapshot, that’s all. But not as easy to dismiss as some of us might think. These are unusual times in Texas and everywhere else.

  • Telling the obvious perhaps? Most semi-closeted xenophobia either can’t afford to vacation in DC or choose to go elsewhere to unwind.

  • Polling anyone in D.C. (tourist or resident) is always going to give you a liberal view and not representative or the rest of the country. We all know we live in a bubble here. Only New York has a bigger bubble around it.

    Now if this same poll had been taken at the Superbowl, then you probably would have gotten a completely different outcome. Or Colorado or Wyoming or Las Vegas, etc. etc. etc.

    • DC tourists skew liberal? Based on what evidence? This is pretty much the most ‘murica place you could visit, besides a NASCAR track.

      • Based on my many interactions with tourists downtown and on the metro, I agree that we get a wide range of visitors. I would not assume our tourists are particularly liberal.

      • What evidence do you have that conservative tourists are visiting D.C. AND going to the Newseum?

        That fact that they are even visiting D.C. and then selecting to go to the Newseum should point to a more liberal attitudes. Do you think the same poll would have given the same results if you took it at the National Archives or maybe Arlington Cemetery? Probably not.

        D.C. is not representative most of of the country. Hillary would be in office. Remember we lost because we are living in our liberal bubble. Let me say it again: We Lost.

        Maybe we should spend less time protesting and more time making sure we win votes next time. Or the long 4 years will turn into the long 8 years. 🙁

        • “Remember we lost because we are living in our liberal bubble.” I don’t think there’s any real consensus just yet on why Trump won and Hillary lost — there are a lot of theories and multiple factors involved. I suspect it will take a while for the dust to settle and hindsight to sharpen.
          .
          The theory I’ve heard that sounds most plausible to me is that people wanted change, not the status quo, and identified Trump as an agent of change and Hillary as an agent of the status quo.
          .
          And even if there were a consensus, I don’t know that it would necessarily be correct. For some reason, what Republicans took away from the 2012 election was that Romney supposedly lost because he wasn’t “conservative enough.” This has never made any sense to me — the liberal guy wins the election, so you conclude that the conservative guy wasn’t sufficiently conservative?

          • Blithe

            textdoc, for me, an interesting question is: “What do we know about the people who chose not to vote? And are the people who didn’t vote in 2016 the same people, or people with similar demographics as people who chose not to vote in previous elections. I think there are people who choose not to vote because “there’s no one worth voting for”. So it’s possible that liberals and progressives were mobilized to vote for Obama, while those who were the most conservative didn’t, in their view, have anyone to vote for, and so, stayed home. I’m not arguing that this is the case — just that this is a possible explanation for the view that Romney “wasn’t conservative enough”.

          • HaileUnlikely

            The data that I have seen so far shows that in the states that Clinton expected to be safe easy wins but ultimately lost, Trump got about as many votes (in winning) as Romney did (losing), give or take a percentage point or two, but Clinton just got waaay fewer votes than Obama did.

          • Blithe, that’s a good point. Given how low voter turnout is in the United States compared to other developed countries, it can make a big difference if people don’t feel sufficiently motivated by a given candidate to show up and vote.

        • >>Remember we lost because we are living in our liberal bubble. Let me say it again: We Lost.

          No, “We” did not lose. “We”, the American people are supposed to be represented no matter who wins the election. Even if *Our Candidate* lost, we still have all the rights and privileges afforded to every other American.

          This kind of talk just turns things into an incredibly partisan experience.

          • Seemed pretty clear to me that by “we,” Anonymouse meant “city-dwelling liberals,” not “the American people as a whole.”

          • And as for “we still have all the rights and privileges afforded to every other American” — given that D.C. residents don’t have representation in Congress, we most distinctly do NOT have those same rights and privileges.

        • “DC tourists are liberal!”
          “What evidence do you have of that?”
          What evidence to do you have that DC tourists lean conservative?”
          .
          That is not how this works. Logic fail. Maybe THAT’s why we lost the election . . .

    • We’re not the bubble – THEY’RE in the bubble!

        • dcgator

          People living in mostly homogenous parts of the country, without much interaction with people different from them—that’s the real bubble.

          • But that’s the problem. We Democrats failed to listen to the homogenous parts of the country. D.C. and the media outlets are out of touch with what others are saying and feeling. The “real bubble” as you put it, banded together and defeated our bubble.

            Do you think that people in rural Texas or Nebraska even care that people are protesting Trump here in D.C.?

          • Anonymouse,
            some of “us democrats” are from those homogenous parts of the country. I’m not failing to listen to my very large conservative family and all the people I grew up with, I am outright rejecting their racist perspectives. Do they have a point that jobs are hard to come by if you don’t have a college degree? Absolutely. Is it Marco or Mohammed’s fault that they didn’t get an education? No. Democrats want to give them higher minimum wage, better worker’s protections, and insurance that’s not tied to a job, but they outright reject that because they want to take revenge on people of color that they perceive to be doing better than them and other people who chose to live their lives in a less traditional manner (gays, slutty women, etc).

          • +1 to southern liberal. There are plenty of people who have listened – for years – to some of the utter shite conservatives have been spewing, and are simply rejecting their perspective. Do we need to listen to everyone? Yes. Do we need to agree with them? No, not if what they’re saying is racist, homophobic, misogynistic tripe.

          • HaileUnlikely

            Both are bubbles; just different bubbles. Diversity of race and socioeconomic status we see on the bus/metro/sidewalk notwithstanding, most of us, whether intentionally or unintentionally, do a pretty good job of minimizing our interactions with people whose socioeconomic status, interest, values, or opinions about things we care about differ much from our own.

  • That picture looks like a lot of people trapped behind a wall.

  • What’s the significance of the different-colored dots (red, yellow, light blue, green)?

  • The left side of the chart has more stickers on it than any poster in history. Period. –Sean Spicer, probably

Comments are closed.